Into the Lions den

[Tim Brownson]

Who remembers the experiment with meditation against crime in Washington DC in 1993?

What are your memories of it, or did you hear about it through 'What The Bleep Do We Know'

I used to wholeheartedly believe in the LoA, now I think it's religion for people that don't like religion and I have some solid reasons.

Here's why.

[Dreamline]

Ok, so what's new? Another non-believer who couldn't get it to work so he, rather than go deeper down the rabbit hole and figure it out, decides to become a naysayer? Yawn...dime a dozen.

There are some things that cannot ever be proven. Needing proof assumes doubt. Doubt cancels manifestation. Simple. If that is unacceptable, move along. This isn't your destiny. Why drag down and slander people that are finding success with it?

Bitterness. Plain and simple. If you are a decent person and you see that some people seem to love marriage but you had a terrible experience with marriage, do you run around trying to make all the happily married people look like fools and idiots? Do you slander their sanity every chance you get? Do you try and "prove" that marriage is a sham because so many people end up divorced?

No. If you are a decent person, you choose the "live and let live" option and get on with your own quest, whatever it may be.

Not LOA naysayers. They aren't happy unless they are smearing their personal LOA misery and failure all over every blogspot or forum they can get their hands on.

I send you all love vibes.

Jennifer

[Tim Brownson]

ROTFLMAO - Yes that's exactly what I am, you really nailed it Jennifer, I'm bitter. I'm known for my bitterness in fact, you've caught me out ;-)

That's why I'm a Life Coach because everybody knows bitter coaches make the best coaches.

So what would getting it to work look like eh? I am very happily married, have a job I would happily do for free (and do often for people that are going through financial difficulty) if I didn't need money. I'm healthy to the best of my knowledge and now I have emigrated, live exactly where I want to live.

Quite honestly, I have all I want, I just don't usually feel the need to ram that down peoples throats.

By your logic my doubt would mean my life is a mess because I would cancel out all the positive manifestation.

Did you actually read all the post btw or is your stock response to anybody that has the temerity to question your beliefs that of yawning without understanding what it is they are saying.

Mind if I copy and paste your response into my comment field, because it beautifully sums up sums up some of what I was talking about.

[moonrambler]

I think this whole thing would be easier to discuss sometimes if it weren't called the Law of Attraction. Who coined that phrase anyway?

This whole "Law" aspect makes it so concrete and also sets up very rigid parameters, which I have personally found don't hold up very well, and many other people here have made similar comments.

I might prefer "Method of Creation."

[Tim Brownson]

MR I kind of agree because it does turn people off, although it didn't me to begin with, I went with it.

I mean I massively believe in visualization, optimistic thinking, intention and belief. And I haven't seen anything that 1 or all of those can't explain quite easily.

[moonrambler]

I even believe in magic. I'm just not so sure I believe in "Law."

It reminds me of taking 10 people and putting them in rooms and telling them to create something. And they look around and all that's there is a canvas and some oil paints. So the person who's an oil painter creates a fantastic piece of art. But what does the guitarist do? And the writer? And the auto mechanic? And the chef? And the website designer? Meanwhile, the oil painter keeps telling them they're just doing it wrong.

It would be interesting to see if there are ANY points that ALL the LOA practitioners agree on. Yet I frequently see people here making statements about how LOA works as though these statements are Absolute Truth, Dogma, even though the evidence doesn't back that up. I can see why you might say it's like a religion.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

By your logic my doubt would mean my life is a mess because I would cancel out all the positive manifestation.

That's incorrect.

Your doubt in the existence of the LOA would not, by the principles of the LOA itself, cancel out all the positive events and situations in your life.

Your doubt in the existence of the LOA would simply mean that it becomes difficult for you to see that it exists.

There can still be plenty of positive events and situations in your life (eg your happy marriage; your enjoyable career etc).

According to the principles of the LOA, these positive events and situations are created by your positive thoughts and beliefs about your marriage, job etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

I mean I massively believe in visualization, optimistic thinking, intention and belief. And I haven't seen anything that 1 or all of those can't explain quite easily.

Of course you haven't.

Most likely, your fundamental block here is that you think that there is one "best" explanation for anything.

You are not understanding that there can be multiple explanations for the same thing, and many of these multiple explanations can be very different, yet simultaneously correct.

What is happening is that you are tending to settle for one possible explanation which strikes you as the most reliable, and you then proceed to dismiss the rest.

Why is a leaf green? You get different answers, depending on whether you listen to a child, a physicist, a chemist or a neuroscientist explaining how the brain interprets certain kinds of electrical signals running from the optic nerve of the eye to the brain.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I'm just not so sure I believe in "Law."

I really don't see what the fuss is about.

It's just a word. Words can be used in different ways. Everyone who understands a language ought to understand that.

I'm a lawyer. I deal with laws everyday. No one complains that I'm not scientific. Funny that people should make that kind of complaint about the Law of Attraction. I wonder if economists receive complaints about the law of supply and demand.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I really don't see what the fuss is about.

It's just a word. Words can be used in different ways. Everyone who understands a language ought to understand that.

I'm a lawyer. I deal with laws everyday. No one complains that I'm not scientific. Funny that people should make that kind of complaint about the Law of Attraction. I wonder if economists receive complaints about the law of supply and demand.

It's because the word "Law" is used more like the law of gravity, rather than laws that people make up and can change. And then all the rules attached to how it works are like sub-laws.

[Tim Brownson]

You're a lawyer?

Wow, and you make statements like "they're only words".

Have you ever won a case? ;-)

Seriously, words are the way we describe our subjective experience, your e life and mine is based round 'only words'. We are communicating now with 'only words' it's all we have here.

I love it! So I have a fundamental block, eh? Great answer and interesting that the word fundamental has crept in!

Obviously you haven't read the post either and this is the amusing bit, to me at least. Along with Jennifer you have boxed me off as a non-believer without reading what I actually said.

I didn't 'dismiss' other reasons I merely pointed out they were highly flawed without resorting to massive conjecture.

"Why is a leaf green? You get different answers, depending on whether you listen to a child, a physicist, a chemist or a neuroscientist explaining how the brain interprets certain kinds of electrical signals running from the optic nerve of the eye to the brain."

A leaf is green because of chlorophyll. If you mean why does it look green, what is green or what does green mean, then things are a tad more complex, but not so complex that science can't agree on the different answers.

And finally, why do 'believers' get so stressed and negged out if it has no effect on what they expect to happen?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

"Why is a leaf green? You get different answers, depending on whether you listen to a child, a physicist, a chemist or a neuroscientist explaining how the brain interprets certain kinds of electrical signals running from the optic nerve of the eye to the brain."

A leaf is green because of chlorophyll. If you mean why does it look green, what is green or what does green mean, then things are a tad more complex, but not so complex that science can't agree on the different answers.

As George Carlin might say, "A leaf is green because that's the name we call that color."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

Obviously you haven't read the post either and this is the amusing bit, to me at least.

Incorrect. I read your entire post.

A leaf is green because of chlorophyll.

Yes, you are right.

It is correct also to say that the leaf has absorbed the other colour frequencies of white light and reflected those with a wavelength of 495 to 570 nm.

A third answer is that electrical signals travelling from the eye's optic nerve to the brain stimulated that part of the brain which interprets colour causing it to be perceived green.

All these answers are correct.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

Seriously, words are the way we describe our subjective experience, your e life and mine is based round 'only words'. We are communicating now with 'only words' it's all we have here.

True. That is why it is important to identify the uselessness of semantic discussion.

"Law" has multiple meanings.

"The Law of Attraction" could therefore mean many things.

However, there is a general common understanding of what it is supposed to mean - and while it is difficult to define precisely the outer boundaries of that general common understanding, it works well enough for purposes of discussion.

When someone - anyone - starts insisting that there's something about the LOA that's defective because it's not "scientific", he's really just insisting that the word "law" here conforms to the particular meaning of law he has in mind.

His point is therefore as foolish as someone who says that the Law of Attraction is false, because it really wasn't passed by Parliament, nor acknowledged by judges in a court of law.

[Acting Like Godot]

Hi Tim:

Let me explain the "block" point again.

Here's your block.

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

I mean I massively believe in visualization, optimistic thinking, intention and belief. And I haven't seen anything that 1 or all of those can't explain quite easily.

Your reasoning goes like this:

(1) Given a certain event, you have a preferred explanation that appeals to your logic, common sense (eg an explanation based on "visualisation"
or "optimistic thinking" etc.

(2) Therefore other explanations (eg based on "the LOA") are false.

Hope you can see your own block now. In the "leaf is green" example, you have acknowledged and understood that science itself can agree on different answers; many of which can be simultaneously right.

The acceptability of your explanation in (1) is not necessarily mutually exclusive of the explanation in (2), you see?

Going a step further, I would say that your (1) explanations probably just fall within the wider umbrella of (2).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

And finally, why do 'believers' get so stressed and negged out if it has no effect on what they expect to happen?

I am thinking about how to sincerely answer the above question. However it is vague and ill-defined and might be based on a number of assumptions which in the first place are wrong.

If you can rephrase the question more clearly, then perhaps we could discuss further.

[Tim Brownson]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your reasoning goes like this:

(1) Given a certain event, you have a preferred explanation that appeals to your logic, common sense (eg an explanation based on "visualisation"
or "optimistic thinking" etc.

(2) Therefore other explanations (eg based on "the LOA") are false.

I wasn't aware I had a block, but thanks for letting me know.

As you have read the post then you'll know my history with this, starting with Thomas Leonard. I'm not somebody that denounced it from the beginning.

There has been a subtle and undoubted shift in what people are cliaming about the LoA over the last few years. Originally in a very simplified form, it was think and you can have.

That turned out to be somewhat silly, so the goal posts got moved, in fact depending on which opinion I read, they haven't even been put down yet.

I was watching Wayne Dyers latest PBS special the other day. In it he talked about some placebo surgery that had been done on peoples knees. All was well and I am familiar with the research because I have used it in my next book, until the end.

At which point Dyer claimed one guy carried on for 2 years doing all the things he couldn't previously do and never knew. In actuality, the placebo patients did gain some relief, but for very short periods of time ( IT think 3 months was the longest off the top of my head). I love WD, but that started me thinking, can't he do his research properly, or is he being flighty with the facts to make a point.

The reason I bring that up is because I bet every person in that room went out believing that story and no doubt telling other people. That's how urban myths arise like the meditation example in my post.

I'm not saying because of visualization, belief and optimistic thinking, that is why the LoA is nonsense. I'm saying it makes it far more likely. we already have reasonable and easily defined explanations, to say "Well hold on a minute, let's throw something much more unlikely and impossible to disprove into the mix" makes as much sense as saying, "Ok, so smoking causes cancer, but could it be the packets that cause it rather than the cigarettes themselves?"

Both times I have posted on this, LoA supporters have side stepped the real questions.

The more ludicrous their position, the more entrenched they become.

The Fox Sisters who started the Spiritualist movement admitted later on they were con artists, so what happened. The movement gained steam and people didn't believe them and amazingly enough, still don't - lmao

BTW, I haven't seen anything done by Esther Hicks that couldn't be explained with cold reading. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

[Tim Brownson]

ALG - Ever been tempted to take a sabbatical and head off to Darfur and teach some of the locals about the LoA?

It'd be nice to spread the word, surely?

A brilliant comment on my blog suggested Jennifer went all "frog in a blender at you"

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

A brilliant comment on my blog suggested Jennifer went all "frog in a blender at you"

Why did you leave off the last part of the quote? The part about how some people here feel "exhaustion with what seems like an unnecessary attack mentality by attackers who don’t fully understand what’s in that crock that appears full of ****."

[Angela]

I've certainly gone Frog-in-a-Blender on this same subject -- another aspect of FiaB is that very often, LoA naysayers here in these forums seem to have very little interest in generously listening to what "devotees" have to say about their beliefs or usages, but rather seem to be committed to ridiculing or being right, and it's easy to get all reactive when you genuinely want to share your feelings and thoughts but are met with what seems like a deliberate Wall of No Engagement. Especially when it's in a forum on the subject being ridiculed or attacked.

I'm not saying that's you, Tim, but whether you are or not, the response you get here may be a fallout from that.

My experience is that getting reactive in the conversation is a downward spiral, but sometimes it's an avenue through which people can learn to be more flexible and effective -- in other words, it's a good thing.

[Acting Like Godot]

Errr, I don't understand that expression - "frog in a blender".

It does yield a rather gruesome mental image.

[Dreamline]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

ROTFLMAO - Yes that's exactly what I am, you really nailed it Jennifer, I'm bitter. I'm known for my bitterness in fact, you've caught me out ;-)

That's why I'm a Life Coach because everybody knows bitter coaches make the best coaches.

So what would getting it to work look like eh? I am very happily married, have a job I would happily do for free (and do often for people that are going through financial difficulty) if I didn't need money. I'm healthy to the best of my knowledge and now I have emigrated, live exactly where I want to live.

Quite honestly, I have all I want, I just don't usually feel the need to ram that down peoples throats.

By your logic my doubt would mean my life is a mess because I would cancel out all the positive manifestation.

Did you actually read all the post btw or is your stock response to anybody that has the temerity to question your beliefs that of yawning without understanding what it is they are saying.

Mind if I copy and paste your response into my comment field, because it beautifully sums up sums up some of what I was talking about.

Whatever plies your ego, Tim. Knock yourself out. My post was a spot-on response to your blog entry and yes I read the whole thing. Like I said: yawn.

Point of fact, I have watched the development of several life coaches in the last six years and hell if they weren't some of the most dysfunctional people I had ever met. So just because you can hang out that shingle on your stoop doesn't make you some kind of expert on everything.

I am pleased to see that you are happy with what life has brought you. Now do the right thing and move on. If LOA isn't your cup of tea, at least shut up about it in case it IS someone else's cup of tea. They deserve a chance to find out for themselves if this is something they should explore.

There is no one right way to live, achieve or make your dreams come true.

Unless, of course, you make a living teaching that one way.

Jennifer

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

ALG - Ever been tempted to take a sabbatical and head off to Darfur and teach some of the locals about the LoA?

It'd be nice to spread the word, surely?

Well, let's put it this way.

I believe that mind is intricately related to reality. I believe that everyone can greatly benefit from exploring that relationship.

But how do they go about exploring that relationship? Here there are many different paths to go. For example, there is:

meditation; hypnosis; prayer; NLP; magick; EFT; positive affirmations; journalling. And also what, in your own case, Tim, you called "visualization" & "optimistic thinking".

To me, all of the above are practical applications of the LOA.

Of course, a person who has experienced the benefits of, say, NLP, may nevertheless scoff at the possibility that prayer works too. A person who knows the value of hypnosis may nevertheless think that magick is nonsense. A person who has successfully used visualisation methods may nevertheless doubt that meditation works.

In each case, I see this merely as the person lacking deeper understanding (of the other paths). Whatever path you take, if you explore it far enough, you will find that it intertwines and criss-crosses with all the other paths.

And the LOA is just a useful word to describe the entire territory, on which all these paths run.

Anyway .... why did I say all this? To answer your question. No, I've never been tempted to take a sabbatical and head off to Darfur and teach some of the locals about the LoA.

Everyone already has abundant opportunities to learn about the LOA. They just have to pick one path, and keep walking.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

There has been a subtle and undoubted shift in what people are cliaming about the LoA over the last few years.

Which area of the LOA are you referring to?

Buddhism? Hypnotheraphy? Quantum physics involving consciousness theories? Meditation research? The use of visualisation in professional sports? The purpose of forming mission statements in corporate organisations?

[Tim Brownson]

@ Jenn - What happened to the love? Don't go all neggy on me now ;-)

And there is no one way, in fact I got into somewhat of a debate with the fella that owns this site about that when I criticized his book for suggesting as such, even though I liked much of it. We're all different and it is at the core of what I do.

You may have scanned the post, but you didn't read it in any other way than to confirm your belief that I'm just another flamer. who doesn't 'get it'

I accept wholeheartedly people questioning me on my blog and in 3 years have never deleted a post for somebody slamming ME or telling me I'm wrong, ever.

Ego? Yeh sure I have one of those, but I'm at least able to not take things including myself too seriously, and most of all, I can have a laugh at myself and see the absurdity in all this.

@ ALG - Prayer, meditation, NLP, visualization, hypnosis etc have all been proven to have certain beneficial effects and I wouldn't discount any of those. Whereas....

BTW, were you were aware of the misinformation about the meditation exercise in 'What the bleep?" I certainly wasn't until this week and spent about 2 hours researching it before I wrote the post. I have that movie and love it. That kind of think does piss me off though because it then turns into accepted fact and urban myth.

[Tim Brownson]

ALG - I have a friend who is a well respected Buddhist teacher (Bodhipaksa). I interviewed him a few months ago and we're gonna do a follow up soon. I'm gonna get his take on the LoA and Buddhism. I'll get back to you on that one, because I have no idea.

[Tim Brownson]

And finally, I have done a lot of research into meditation in sport for a book I am co-authoring and the LoA never ever came up. Have you ever read any Dr Nick Hall, he talks a lot about visualization.

I'm also a qualified hypnotherapist and one of my best friends is one of the best hypno guys in the US. The LoA comes up in conversation from time to time, but never heard anybody suggest there was a link between the two.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

Now do the right thing and move on. If LOA isn't your cup of tea, at least shut up about it in case it IS someone else's cup of tea.

What?!? You are trying to get rid of your own manifestation?! Not to mention ALG's, which would be very difficult, I think. And I know Tim well enough to know that resisting him makes him persist!

@ALG, sorry for the negative internal representation. A "frog in a blender" is just a funny cartoony image I use for someone who goes all {{{jumps up and down, throws her arms in the air flailing wildly, eyes all buggy, outrage spewing out all over the kitchen}}}}.

No actual frogs were injured in the making of this visual image.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

@ ALG - Prayer, meditation, NLP, visualization, hypnosis etc have all been proven to have certain beneficial effects and I wouldn't discount any of those. Whereas....

Whereas ...?

BTW, were you were aware of the misinformation about the meditation exercise in 'What the bleep?" I certainly wasn't until this week and spent about 2 hours researching it before I wrote the post. I have that movie and love it. That kind of think does piss me off though because it then turns into accepted fact and urban myth.

No. I actually have never watched "What the Bleep".

I <i>have</i> heard about the meditation exercise. I also have a habit of reading scientific papers, where I can get my hands on them.

One of the things I realised is that scientists are endlessly poking holes at each other's research. It's an ongoing thing. It does not surprise me that criticisms can be made of the meditation exercise. After all, to this day, scientists are still poking holes at each other's research on Vitamin C. It is partially attributable the nature of scientific inquiry.

Also, there are hundreds or thousands of LOA-related books, DVDs, CDs, TV shows etc out there. Each of those books, DVDs, CDs, TV shows is going to have dozens or hundreds of examples, illustrations or claims.

Those examples, illustrations or claims can't all be accurate & complete. The same could be said of any chemistry textbook, or history book, or economics essay. Each of those works may have four or five paragraphs, or one chapter, or 10 minutes of footage devoted to a particular example. That doesn't mean that that is all that can be said of that particular example.

To understand anything better, you have to go more deeply. Read multiple sources, keep asking questions, do your own thinking, etc etc.

---------

A few comments about the meditation exercise.

As I recall, it goes something like this. A group of people get together to meditate. They meditate on peace or harmony or "less crime", or something like that, in a particular city. Thereafter - it is alleged - the crime level in the city drops.

As an experiment - never mind for now whether the phenomenon is actually genuine or not - the exercise is badly designed. That's my own criticism.

(Of course it may or may not have been primarily intended as an experiment - the people who organised it perhaps organised it for the sake of creating peace and harmony, not for the sake of carrying out scientific research).

As an experiment, the design is very poor, because the parameters are so vague and ill-controlled. A few simple questions will make it clear:

(1) with so many people meditating, how can you control or measure or evaluate how they're actually meditating?

(2) how do you actually measure crime in a city? (As a former Deputy Public Prosecutor, I can tell you that is a major field of research in itself, and one where numerous data gaps exist in practice. A high number of new cases, for example, may only indicate (a) prosecutorial zealousness or (b) improved police efficiency or (c) increased access to reporting crime, by members of the public).

(3) there are so many types of crimes - eg tax evasion; murder; careless driving; underaged sex; cruelty to animals. What kind of crimes are supposed to have been reduced by the meditation?

(4) where's the control group? In other words, whatever the actual crime rate turns out to be, how do you know that it would not have been higher/lower, if the meditation had not been done?

Here's the implication of a badly-designed experiment. Even if the crime rate in that particular week/month/year had dropped clearly, tremendously and greatly, it would be possible to say that the meditation had nothing to do with it.


========

Nevertheless the significance of the meditation exercise can be framed in a number of different ways, eg ...

(a) Can your thoughts affect the behaviour of other people (even though you do not speak to them or interact with them directly).

(b) Can your thoughts affect anything outside of your own body (if you do not take any physical action to affect that thing which is outside your own body.

If you frame the inquiry as follows (see (a) or (b) above), then you see that these questions can be further investigated with stricter experimental controls. And yes, certainly there are many different experiments which could be said to shed light on these points.

[Tim Brownson]

@ Angela - Damn I wish I'd said that about them manifesting me! Maybe I will.

For ALG